Neill:

As I explored in another thread, i am thinking that the prohibition on Company suffixes is a bad one for a variety of reasons, this one as well. I think we need to modify that area, and go with as credited.

You were assuming som,ething that was NOT indicated by the data. It is also possible that at some point the Company made a corporate decision to simply become Davis Entertainment. That si why you go by the DATA and do not make presumptions or assumptions. The data says what it says. This is also why Common Corporate Names are a BAD thing, companies are worse avbout naming than people are and will change them at the drop of a hat.

I don't recall you documenting that in your notes. But another user has indicated that the data was correct based on his post. It is very important to communicate what you are doinf, why, what the basis for your conclusion is, this is the only way to communicate with voters, and six months from now when someobne is reviweing the title they can see and understand what you did.

"You don't think it's possible for the main producing company or media company to mis-credit a company?"

This puts you in the position of being superior to the filmmakers, sure it is possible, but the data is the data. You are but a data entry person, the same job that any of us with respect to the Online, and your knowledge is only the data and is not suprior in any way to those that provide said data. Imagine if you will that you simply sitting and inputting data from data cards, would you be entering the data on the card, or would you be sitting there trying to interpret what is on the card, and what basis would have to difer from what you see on that card. You would have NONE. Gosh I think this guy is reall, Jr., but he he didn't enter it on his card, you CAN'T make that determination.

The Rules give EXAMPLES, Neill. Surely you aren't suggesting that encompasses all possibilites...are you?.

That said I think we need to go to AS CREDITED for Studuios, including suffixes.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
You were assuming som,ething that was NOT indicated by the data. It is also possible that at some point the Company made a corporate decision to simply become Davis Entertainment. That si why you go by the DATA and do not make presumptions or assumptions. The data says what it says. This is also why Common Corporate Names are a BAD thing, companies are worse avbout naming than people are and will change them at the drop of a hat.

I don't recall you documenting that in your notes. But another user has indicated that the data was correct based on his post. It is very important to communicate what you are doinf, why, what the basis for your conclusion is, this is the only way to communicate with voters, and six months from now when someobne is reviweing the title they can see and understand what you did.

"You don't think it's possible for the main producing company or media company to mis-credit a company?"

This puts you in the position of being superior to the filmmakers, sure it is possible, but the data is the data. You are but a data entry person, the same job that any of us with respect to the Online, and your knowledge is only the data and is not suprior in any way to those that provide said data. Imagine if you will that you simply sitting and inputting data from data cards, would you be entering the data on the card, or would you be sitting there trying to interpret what is on the card, and what basis would have to difer from what you see on that card. You would have NONE. Gosh I think this guy is reall, Jr., but he he didn't enter it on his card, you CAN'T make that determination.

Like I said, I looked around about Davis Entertainment, and what I found was that they are credited as "...Company" only very few times.
Btw, you were the one voting no for a contribution when I wanted to ADD "Company".
I think it's about common sense.
I'm looking and all I see is that in the vast majority of cases D.E. is D.E. and not D.E.C. They haven't changed their name either. In that case they would be schizophrenic. Changing it back and forth.

"Davis Entertainment Company" is in the absolute minority, in either case. But also I find no evidence that they are called D.E.C., officially.
But mostly bothersome is that either we call the D.E.C. or we call them D.E. – because they have not changed their name. If so, rather to drop the "Company". That's my belief.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
"Davis Entertainment Company" is in the absolute minority, in either case. But also I find no evidence that they are called D.E.C., officially.
But mostly bothersome is that either we call the D.E.C. or we call them D.E. – because they have not changed their name. If so, rather to drop the "Company". That's my belief.

I don't think that's a strong position to argue from, as we found out to our cost when the CLT was introduced and we discovered the online database was (and still is) rife with IMDB data. Just because most credits say "Davis Entertainment" unfortunately doesn't make them right.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we need a bit more info before we can know for sure.

OK. So we will have to live with two versions of spellings of this company then.
The funny thing is, my other profiles I submitted for I, Robot will be approved...

I still regard D.E. as their "common name".

It'd be interesting to hear from the company themselves.

But that's only valid if the name is in plain text. Not if you only see the logo and think "wysiwyg".

Then it'd be correct to change names for lots of studios.

A screen cap of what?

Svensk Filmindustri has the SF logo.
Universal Pictures has the Universal logo.

Many logos don't say the full name. Still, this is considered enough for many contributers.